|
Post by Enderminion on May 30, 2017 8:16:17 GMT -6
From the famous Cornerstone Speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephans "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." Even after the American Civil War proved this type of ideal government was a bad idea, South Africa wanted to find out for themselvesNow, does this speech change anything? Was the war really about slavery or was this just one man’s opinion. The Confederate constitution did not give any of the states any more rights than our constitution, in fact, it did not allow for states to secede. Which is interesting. I still believe that this war was about the rights of states. Lincoln stated in his speeches before his first election that he did not have the right to eliminate slavery and no will to do so. Why then would this cause the states to secede. Possibly they knew that this was just politics and that he was really against slavery? BTW, the date of the now famous "cornerstone" speech was March 4th, 1861 which was Lincoln's Inauguration Day.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 30, 2017 8:34:42 GMT -6
From the famous Cornerstone Speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephans "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." Even after the American Civil War proved this type of ideal government was a bad idea, South Africa wanted to find out for themselvesNow, does this speech change anything? Was the war really about slavery or was this just one man’s opinion. The Confederate constitution did not give any of the states any more rights than our constitution, in fact, it did not allow for states to secede. Which is interesting. I still believe that this war was about the rights of states. Lincoln stated in his speeches before his first election that he did not have the right to eliminate slavery and no will to do so. Why then would this cause the states to secede. Possibly they knew that this was just politics and that he was really against slavery? BTW, the date of the now famous "cornerstone" speech was March 4th, 1861 which was Lincoln's Inauguration Day. Good observation because that is true. Apartheid apparently did not work for any nation. I doubt if it would have worked for the CSA. I believe that over time, had they gained independence, slavery and apartheid would have failed in the CSA. I need to find some references on that idea.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on May 31, 2017 16:02:58 GMT -6
Interestingly, the Civil War was more about states rights than the issue of slavery. Dude, that is a historical myth which has been completely debunked. As soon as the civil rights movement delegitimized the openly racist movement that kept this myth going, historians quickly set about demolishing it. These days, there is complete consensus about the cause of the civil war: it was slaveryIt's not even a difficult topic to understand. This is an open and shut case where there is a huge amount of documentation by the people at the time which didn't beat around the bush and the statements of secession don't mince words. Had the South simply abolished slavery, they probably would have gotten recognition from Great Britain and France. There literally wouldn't have been a reason to fight a war. The tariff debate is a ridiculous anachronism invented a century later.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 31, 2017 16:51:04 GMT -6
Interestingly, the Civil War was more about states rights than the issue of slavery. Dude, that is a historical myth which has been completely debunked. As soon as the civil rights movement delegitimized the openly racist movement that kept this myth going, historians quickly set about demolishing it. These days, there is complete consensus about the cause of the civil war: it was slaveryIt's not even a difficult topic to understand. This is an open and shut case where there is a huge amount of documentation by the people at the time which didn't beat around the bush and the statements of secession don't mince words. Had the South simply abolished slavery, they probably would have gotten recognition from Great Britain and France. There literally wouldn't have been a reason to fight a war. The tariff debate is a ridiculous anachronism invented a century later. I have a list of very prominent authors that would disagree. Lincoln himself before and during the war stated that the slavery issue was not important to him. The only reason he issued the Emancipation Proclamation was to force the Northern people to continue the fight to reunify the Union. The Federal government was only against slavery migrating into the territories that were governed by them. There was no desire to get slavery out of the Southern states. You can't believe what Stephan's said that the new government was founded on the issue of slavery and the fact that the Blacks were an inferior race, he was speaking for himself. The issue of states rights or slavery only came about during the 1960's. The interesting part is that the CSA constitution never states anything about slavery. It in fact, does not allow states to secede. The states since the revolution, were divided into states that allowed and states that prohibited slavery until the Thirteenth amendment of 1865. If the war was about slavery, why wasn't that put into the original constitution or at least amended long before the War Between the States. It is a fact that the Republicans, Lincoln's party, were opposed to any interference with slavery in the States where it already existed, but they demanded freedom for the vas unorganized territory west of the Missouri river. The tariff issue had long been solved. It would have been to the European nations best interest if the Union had separated into two countries, but it was the issue of slavery brought to the forefront by Lincoln after the proclamation that caused the two overseas nations to balk. They stated neutral because of the attitude of their countrymen which was anti-slavery. . It is my opinion based on all the years of study on this war, that it was about both. While it started out as states rights, Lincoln used slavery to get the north to stay in the fight. I don't think he really cared about the black slaves, he just wanted to save the Union. This is what I believe fits the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on May 31, 2017 18:23:33 GMT -6
I have a list of very prominent authors that would disagree. Yeah and you can find a bunch of "scientists" who will swear on a stack of bibles that anthropogenic climate change is a conspiracy. How many of these people are actual professional historians whose work comes from after civil rights era? Lincoln himself before and during the war stated that the slavery issue was not important to him. Yes, this is a well known fact. It doesn't actually contradict the fact that the civil war was wholly about slavery. Pick up Team of Rivals some time and read the way that politicians like Seward and Douglass (strange bedfellows) were pleading with their southern colleagues to accept northern concessions on the issue of slavery. They weren't offering concessions on tarrifs or "states rights" because nobody in the south cared about that. This fact is thrown about like some sort of trump card, as if it's impossible for people to make strategic political descisions. That's ridiculous. Read what the southerns wrote about this! They stated their exact causes! avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.aspThis ain't rocket science. You are acting like it's impossible for the slaveholders to think slavery was under threat because Lincoln used some conciliatory language. Yet somehow they themselves came right out and said it's about slavery.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 31, 2017 19:08:56 GMT -6
I have a list of very prominent authors that would disagree. Yeah and you can find a bunch of "scientists" who will swear on a stack of bibles that anthropogenic climate change is a conspiracy. How many of these people are actual professional historians whose work comes from after civil rights era? Lincoln himself before and during the war stated that the slavery issue was not important to him. Yes, this is a well known fact. It doesn't actually contradict the fact that the civil war was wholly about slavery. Pick up Team of Rivals some time and read the way that politicians like Seward and Douglass (strange bedfellows) were pleading with their southern colleagues to accept northern concessions on the issue of slavery. They weren't offering concessions on tarrifs or "states rights" because nobody in the south cared about that. This fact is thrown about like some sort of trump card, as if it's impossible for people to make strategic political descisions. That's ridiculous. Read what the southerns wrote about this! They stated their exact causes! avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.aspThis ain't rocket science. You are acting like it's impossible for the slaveholders to think slavery was under threat because Lincoln used some conciliatory language. Yet somehow they themselves came right out and said it's about slavery. We aren't accomplishing anything with this discussion. I am done.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on May 31, 2017 19:24:49 GMT -6
We aren't accomplishing anything with this discussion. I am done. I notice you do this a lot the moment someone presents a counter-argument to what you say.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 31, 2017 20:11:19 GMT -6
We aren't accomplishing anything with this discussion. I am done. I notice you do this a lot the moment someone presents a counter-argument to what you say. I am not on this forum to argue about anything. If it gets contentious then I just don't think it is worth it. I enjoy stimulating discussions and I have had many on this forum over the years. To me, an exchange of ideas is valuable. I have learned so many things from others. Now, If someone wants to discuss the particulars of the combat operation and the battle, I would enjoy such a discussion and would like to hear other opinions on the how it was conceived, planned and executed. It probably was one of the most defining operations in the Civil War although one can make the case that there were others, of much more importance. In fact, that might be a good direction to take, let's examine other campaigns like the first movement into the North in 1862, or the Middle Tennessee or even the Vicksburg campaign which is very important and very interesting. Maybe the Peninsular Campaign would be a good place to start. It had the makings of a great Union victory and could have ended the war; maybe. I would like to continue the thread. So, let's hear what all of you that are interested have to say.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on May 31, 2017 21:56:05 GMT -6
FYI IIRC, the war was not particlarly about slavery (it was one of many issues leading to the war) until Lincoln made it about slavery in 1862-3
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 31, 2017 22:06:37 GMT -6
FYI IIRC, the war was not particlarly about slavery (it was one of many issues leading to the war) until Lincoln made it about slavery in 1862-3 I would agree that the War Between the States did not have one particular reason for starting. States Rights and Slavery were two big issue and had been a bone of contention long before 1861. The tariff issue was not that important but was a factor. As you have said and I agree, Lincoln made it about slavery after the Emancipation Proclamation. Most historians believe that it was used as a political issue and that is probably true. Good points. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on May 31, 2017 22:07:36 GMT -6
FYI IIRC, the war was not particlarly about slavery (it was one of many issues leading to the war) until Lincoln made it about slavery in 1862-3 So why did all the southern declarations of independence say it was about slavery after Lincoln was elected but before he was in office? So why did Douglass go around the south after the election promising southern audiences that northern democrats could get western territories reopened to slavery as soon as they were back in power? So why did Lincoln devote his inaugural address and whistlestop tour in the middle of the secession crisis to promising moderation on slavery? What are these "many issues"? Be extremely explicit about these points. Show the way that the CSA was meaningfully different on them. Are you going to be one of those people that gets confronted with a new idea and then refuses to actually consider it? Who mistakes the regurgitating received wisdom for actual insight? Or do you want to examine this stuff? Look up the declarations, they are on the internet. Read the Coopers Union Address. Read the Cornerstone speech. Read about what Tzar Alexander or Karl Marx made of it.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 1, 2017 6:41:03 GMT -6
FYI IIRC, the war was not particlarly about slavery (it was one of many issues leading to the war) until Lincoln made it about slavery in 1862-3 So why did all the southern declarations of independence say it was about slavery after Lincoln was elected but before he was in office? So why did Douglass go around the south after the election promising southern audiences that northern democrats could get western territories reopened to slavery as soon as they were back in power? So why did Lincoln devote his inaugural address and whistlestop tour in the middle of the secession crisis to promising moderation on slavery? What are these "many issues"? Be extremely explicit about these points. Show the way that the CSA was meaningfully different on them. Are you going to be one of those people that gets confronted with a new idea and then refuses to actually consider it? Who mistakes the regurgitating received wisdom for actual insight? Or do you want to examine this stuff? Look up the declarations, they are on the internet. Read the Coopers Union Address. Read the Cornerstone speech. Read about what Tzar Alexander or Karl Marx made of it. ok i Will look into those things before coming back here
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 1, 2017 7:06:12 GMT -6
So why did all the southern declarations of independence say it was about slavery after Lincoln was elected but before he was in office? So why did Douglass go around the south after the election promising southern audiences that northern democrats could get western territories reopened to slavery as soon as they were back in power? So why did Lincoln devote his inaugural address and whistlestop tour in the middle of the secession crisis to promising moderation on slavery? What are these "many issues"? Be extremely explicit about these points. Show the way that the CSA was meaningfully different on them. Are you going to be one of those people that gets confronted with a new idea and then refuses to actually consider it? Who mistakes the regurgitating received wisdom for actual insight? Or do you want to examine this stuff? Look up the declarations, they are on the internet. Read the Coopers Union Address. Read the Cornerstone speech. Read about what Tzar Alexander or Karl Marx made of it. ok i Will look into those things before coming back here avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp - Try looking at this site, it contains the CSA documents for you. In 1925, a scholar named Frank Owsley put forth the thesis that it was the conflict between the states and the government of Jefferson Davis that actually caused the loss of the Civil War. He contended that the unwillingness of the states to hand over forces, food, clothing and ordnance was prime factor in the military losses during the war. Historiography since that day has debunked some of his thesis. Modern historians don't believe that that factor had much to do with the final end and was prime cause.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jun 1, 2017 7:52:01 GMT -6
I'm getting a 404 error with that link
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 1, 2017 7:55:28 GMT -6
|
|